Plains Cooperative Oil Mill

17 Cited authorities

Machinists Local v. Labor Board
362 U.S. 411 (1960) Cited 276 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely
Labor Board v. Parts Co.
375 U.S. 405 (1964) Cited 213 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”
Labor Board v. Link-Belt Co.
311 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 338 times
Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"
Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B
321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963) Cited 91 times
Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct
Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B
336 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1964) Cited 64 times
In Texas Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 336 F.2d 128 (5 Cir. 1964), the court held that charges filed by the Union that alleged generally that the company had "engaged in * * * unfair labor practices within the meaning of" Section 8(a)(1) and (3), and then alleged specifically various acts of coercion against a named employee was sufficient to include unfair labor practices by the company against other employees which were not mentioned in the charges.
N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.
307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 52 times
In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.
N.L.R.B. v. Vapor Blast Manufacturing Company
287 F.2d 402 (7th Cir. 1961) Cited 28 times
No. 13149. February 28, 1961. Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Atty., Stuart Rothman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Frederick U. Reel, Atty., N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., for petitioner. H. William Ihrig, Milwaukee, Wis., Milton Gerwin, Chicago, Ill., Philip L. Padden, Milwaukee, Wis., Earl A. Glick, Chicago, Ill., for respondent. Before HASTINGS, Chief Judge, KNOCH, Circuit Judge, and MERCER, District Judge. HASTINGS, Chief Judge. The National
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Nabors
196 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1952) Cited 37 times
No. 13526. April 29, 1952. Rehearing Denied June 6, 1952. Owsley Vose, A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and David P. Findling, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Martin Dies, Sr., Lufkin, Tex., for respondent. Before HOLMES, BORAH, and STRUM, Circuit Judges. STRUM, Circuit Judge. `This is a petition to enforce, and a cross petition to set aside, an order of the National Labor Relations Board, issued April 19, 1950, pursuant to Sec. 10(c) of the National Labor Relations
Paramount Cap Mfg. Co. v. Natl. Labor Rel. Bd.
260 F.2d 109 (8th Cir. 1958) Cited 17 times
No. 15985. October 24, 1958. Rehearing Denied November 17, 1958. John R. Stockham, St. Louis, Mo. (Stockham, Roth, Buder Martin, St. Louis, Mo., were with him on the brief), for petitioner. Morris A. Solomon, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. (Jerome D. Fenton, Gen. Counsel, Thomas J. McDermott, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Frederick U. Reel, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for respondent
Henry L. Siegel Co. v. N.L.R.B
328 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1964) Cited 10 times
In Henry L. Siegel v. NLRB, 328 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1964), we held that an employer violates § 8(a)(1) if he bludgeons his employees into furnishing copies of their statements.

Plains Cooperative Oil Mill

17 Cited authorities

Holding that “a finding of violation which is inescapably grounded on events predating the limitations period” is untimely

Holding that the Act “prohibits not only intrusive threats and promises but also conduct immediately favorable to employees which is undertaken with the express purpose of impinging upon their freedom of choice for or against unionization and is reasonably calculated to have that effect.”

Finding a violation of the Act when a supervisor mistakenly believed an employee was involved with the union and discharged him "because of his alleged union activities"

Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct

In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.

In Henry L. Siegel v. NLRB, 328 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1964), we held that an employer violates § 8(a)(1) if he bludgeons his employees into furnishing copies of their statements.